Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the progressive return states (build phase + file count, finished app, live URLs), which tells the agent what to expect at each stage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place, with the trigger front-loaded before the return-value summary and the parameter note. No redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so detailed return-value documentation isn't required, yet the description still summarizes the staged outputs. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully-documented single parameter, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single artifactId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only minor reinforcement that the id comes from build_app, which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource (check an app build/deploy status) and distinguishes it from siblings like build_app and deploy_app by scoping it to polling progress and liveness. An agent can tell what it does and when it applies without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete trigger ('when the user asks how their app build or deploy is going, or whether it is live') and notes the id comes from build_app. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., video_status for videos or deploy_app to initiate a deploy), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.